Another Democratic Flip-Flop

In a surprising turn of events, the Obama administration is now reported to be reversing course and has come to the conclusion that all of their bitching and whining was unjustified. Realizing the flaw in their initial thinking and acknowledging that their petty attacks and reckless accusations against President Bush were unwarranted in this particular area, they have issued a formal apology. OK, I made that second part up. We all know that there will not be a time when the arrogant group of liberals running the Democratic party admit to being wrong or offer any apologies to Bush. But interestingly, they are in fact reversing course in the military commission system at Gitmo.

I find this both funny and infuriating. So let’s look back at the past and how Democrats have been blasting the idea of the military commissions since their inception in October, 2006. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed by the Republican Congress by votes of 250-170 in the House of Representatives (only 32 of 201 Democrats voted for the bill, all others voted nay) and 65-34 in the Senate (32 of 44 Democratic Senators voted nay). The bill was touted to establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

Supporters of the act stated that the Constitutional provision guaranteeing habeas corpus does not apply to alien enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States, and that the provisions of the Act removing habeas corpus do not apply to United States citizens; they concluded that therefore the law does not conflict with the Constitution. In this way they are correct, it did not conflict with the Constitution. That doesn’t mean the actions were moral or the right thing to do. I will keep my opinion out of the argument at this point.

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy stated about the Military Commissions, “Authorizing indefinite detention of anybody the Government designates, without any proceeding and without any recourse—is what our worst critics claim the United States would do, not what American values, traditions and our rule of law would have us do. This is not just a bad bill, this is a dangerous bill.”

Now President, and then Democratic Senator from the state of Illinois, Barack Obama, stated at the time of the Military Commissions Act’s passing, “There will be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces, and we will be called everything from cut-and-run quitters to Defeatocrats, to people who care more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans,” predicted Sen. Obama. “While I know all of this, I’m still disappointed, and I’m still ashamed, because what we’re doing here today — a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused — should be bigger than politics.”

And I think it is important to here our most eloquent public servant speak about this issue at the time of its passage. During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Obama took the podium as a man seeking his party’s endorsement as candidate for President of the United States. And this is what he stated:

The bottom line is this: Current procedures under the CSRT are such that a perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government’s case and has no way of proving his innocence.

I would like somebody in this Chamber, somebody in this Government, to tell me why this is necessary. I do not want to hear that this is a new world and we face a new kind of enemy. I know that. . . . But as a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence.

This is not just an entirely fictional scenario, by the way. We have already had reports by the CIA and various generals over the last few years saying that many of the detainees at Guantanamo should not have been there. As one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal:

“Sometimes, we just didn’t get the right folks.”

We all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria–through a rendition agreement–tortured, only to find out later it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information. . . .

This is an extraordinarily difficult war we are prosecuting against terrorists. There are going to be situations in which we cast too wide a net and capture the wrong person. . . .

But what is avoidable is refusing to ever allow our legal system to correct these mistakes. By giving suspects a chance–even one chance–to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . .

Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody’s right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.

In Sunday’s New York Times, it was reported that previous drafts of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, a report of 16 different Government intelligence agencies, describe “actions by the United States Government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.”

This is not just unhelpful in our fight against terror, it is unnecessary. We don’t need to imprison innocent people to win this war. For people who are guilty, we have the procedures in place to lock them up. That is who we are as a people. We do things right, and we do things fair.

Two days ago, every Member of this body received a letter, signed by 35 U.S. diplomats, many of whom served under Republican Presidents. They urged us to reconsider eliminating the rights of habeas corpus from this bill, saying:

“To deny habeas corpus to our detainees can be seen as a prescription for how the captured members of our own military, diplomatic, and NGO personnel stationed abroad may be treated. ….. The Congress has every duty to insure their protection, and to avoid anything which will be taken as a justification, even by the most disturbed minds, that arbitrary arrest is the acceptable norm of the day in the relations between nations, and that judicial inquiry is an antique, trivial and dispensable luxury.”

The world is watching what we do today in America. They will know what we do here today, and they will treat all of us accordingly in the future–our soldiers, our diplomats, our journalists, anybody who travels beyond these borders. I hope we remember this as we go forward. I sincerely hope we can protect what has been called the “great writ” — a writ that has been in place in the Anglo-American legal system for over 700 years.

Mr. President, this should not be a difficult vote. I hope we pass this amendment because I think it is the only way to make sure this underlying bill preserves all the great traditions of our legal system and our way of life.

I yield the floor.

"Yet Another Failed Policy"

Fast forward to the Presidential campaign in 2008. On the day that the courts struck down a portion of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Candidate Obama issued a statement toeing the Democratic Party Lines and lambasting John McCain and George Bush for their supporting it. He stated, “Today’s Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court’s decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo – yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy.”

Wow quite a statement in favor of habeas corpus. And one that I happened to agree with. He followed that up on the campaign trail with the following statements on the actual military commissions (tribunals) and the way that they are run, and their abject failure. He said, “By any measure our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure,” and declared that as president he would “reject the Military Commissions Act.”

I was not surprised then, that President Obama, in his very first week as President of the United States, issued an Executive Order immediately stopping all military commissions in Guantánamo. For all intensive purposes, I believed that the military tribunals there were a dead issue.

So imagine my surprise to find out that the Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself, as noted above. In recent days a variety of officials involved in the deliberations say that after administration lawyers examined many of the cases, the mood shifted toward using military commissions to prosecute some detainees, perhaps including those charged with coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks. “The more they look at it,” said one official, “the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.”

So thatBarack Obama, the one making the speech above on the Senate floor (and attempting to convince Democrats to make him their nominee and then their President) said that abducting people and imprisoning them without charges was:

un-American

tyrannical

unnecessary to fight Terrorism

a potent means for stoking anti-Americanism and fueling Terrorism

a means of endangering captured American troops, Americans traveling abroad and Americans generally

a violent betrayal of core, centuries-old Western principles of justice.

However, today’s Barack Obama, safely elected President and tucked in the White House, fights tooth and nail to preserve his power to do exactly that. These contradictions between what he said and what he is doing, the embrace of the very powers that caused so much anger towards Bush/Cheney, are so blatant, so transparent, so extreme, that the only way to avoid noticing them is to purposely shut your eyes as tightly as possible and resolve that you don’t want to see it, or that you’re so convinced of his intrinsic Goodness that you’ll just believe that even when it seems like he’s doing bad things, he must really be doing them for the Good. One concept that progressives were united on in their battle to demonize President Bush over the last eight years was that the President does not have the power to kidnap people, ship them far away, and then imprison them indefinitely in a cage without due process.

Interesting that now that those progressives are the ones enjoying all the power, the policies don’t change. The only difference is the flavor of website that wages the arguments. Liberal websites will now go back to 2006 archives from conservative websites and cut and paste the arguments conservatives used to defend Bush. Conservatives can do the same to cut and paste the arguments liberals made against the military tribunals. The hypocrisy is nothing short of staggering.

Anyone still feeling like one party is any better than the other one? Or are you starting to get my drift that they both suck?

Comments

USW, I really wasn’t paying much attention when this law was enacted. I can say, I don’t agree with it. Everyone, enemy or not should have a fundamental right to defend against any legal challeges they may face.

In past wars, we had POW’s, as did our enemies. The U.S. continues to argue for the release of the reporter held in Iran, but yet contiue to act differently about those we hold.

INHO, there should have been a trial of some sorts by now, and if found guilty, given a jail sentence. IF not, sent back to their country. Justice should be served, but in a timely manner.

I would have to agree that these people were detained for too long without a trial of any kind to determine their guilt or innocence.

However, the idea of just letting them go free is also flawed. Some of these people want to kill Americans and have used their religion (slightly perverted from the true teachings of Islam) to justify their hatred.

These issues could have been researched and a solution reached while we were busy worrying about steroids in baseball other things of lesser importance.

In war prisoners are kept till the end of the conflict so the ones caught in iraq should be held prisoner till the war on terror is over, the # that was waterboarded should be tried and hung, shot, or gassed they confessed to crimes and planning other crimes.

G-Man,
<blockquote cite=”In past wars, we had POW’s, as did our enemies. The U.S. continues to argue for the release of the reporter held in Iran, but yet contiue to act differently about those we hold. ”

I’m getting the impression that you believe the foolish little reporter in Iran and the Jihadis in Gitmo are equally dangerous. Is that acurate? I feel as though purse snatchers are less dangerous than serial killers. Lord knows reporters can cause some damage, but not as much as Jihads. Help me out here…..

Thats not my belief at all! Based on USW’s article, I was saying tat I am against removing Habias Corpus (the right to a fair and timely trial) from anyone in US custody. Are Jihadists dangerous, you bet. Are drug dealers the same, you bet. Both, are as dangerous, but in some aspects, differently. The purse snatcher needs money for drugs. And he is apathetic to what is really going on. In my town, I could wipe out drugs if given the chance, but the system (mainly financial) won’t allow me that chance.

As a note, illegal drugs and the trade, have killed far more US citizens than all terrorist atttacks combined worldwide (All deaths, regardless of citizenship).

Terrorism, is a scare tactic, by government, to get more control over you and I.

So how do we improve our ability to pick up the right people without giving up our intelligence folks? I think that’s the big problem. I believe that a few of the prisoners may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, or are victims of mistaken identity. But I also believe that these people are being release when the mistake is dicovered. I’m concerned about the substantial number of former detainees that return to the fight after their release. I thought the government had determined that those guys were not a threat. How does this happen? I’m not privy to the inner workings of this whole mess so there’s probably something I’m missing. But I think bringing these guys to the US and trying them like common criminals isn’t the answer either. It’ll open a couple of cans of worms. If we’re going to apply US law to every human on the planet, we’re going to have our work cut out for us. I’ve been thinking that if we do that, we should do it across the board on ALL US laws, and not selectively. We could generate alot of money in taxes, fees, regulations, etc. Of course the world will scream bloody murder, but then we can tell them, we’re just applying to you, what we apply to US citizens. We figured if it applied to terrorists, it may as well apply to everyone on the whole planet. Equal treatment and all. Yeah, I like to stir the brown and stinky once in awhile!

I am sorry, I cannot agree with your last sentence. In actuality, the terrorism is real. It is the “never let a good crisis go to waste” mentality of the government that is truely frightening. They use actions of others to incite deeper fear and cause the people to beg for protection. With the news media as their agent, government uses all emergencies as a way to increase the stranglehold they have upon the people. This has been the case since Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. We need to correct the errors of history and repeal numerous rules and congressional laws if we want to allow America to be great once again. In order to do so, we need a coalition of conservatives to band together against progressiveism and begin setting things right.
Numerous people who post her profess their discontent with the Republican party, and I am one of them. However, I believe that rather than abandon the party and those people who will ALWAYS vote Republican, we need to reform the party. If everyone who has a gripe with the party would join and work to correct the problems, we could overcome the past and build an organization that would support a majority of conservative views that most us us could agree with. I have studied the platforms of several of the alternative parties and cannot say that I agree with all of any platform. We need to establish a common ground among these alternatives and get everyone voting to oust the Dumbocrats. They are winning because even though they do not all agree, they have decided that a disagreeable Democrat candidate is better than a Republican. We need to establish a similar agreement agains them.

Little has been objectively reported regarding the prisoner in Iran – its dangerous to suggest that we know both sides of this story and what she was doing there. The only perception we have is what the American media has shown us in soundbites.

Many holding Canadian and Iranian dual citizenship have been held and are being held today without being formally charged. Men and women both, their only guilt is/was/will likely always be speaking freely of wanting the life they have here available to those inside the country of their birth. A most grievous crime I’m certain to some Americans but even the farthest left has to admit our CSIS would not be using known “subversives” who have openly displayed their belief in democracy over theocracy as “spies”.

Does our military release them after they’ve been found innocent (or at least not the people we’re looking for)? USW’s article mentioned that many had been found to have been improperly detained. What was done with them then? Obama comparing what the syrian governmenet did to the Canadian man does not seem fair.

Do foreign people have the same rights as American citizens under American law?

What bothers me the most though is that you can’t possible debate issues with people who are not concerned with issues–they are just concerned with power.

Some have been found to be innocent of attacks on the USA but are still terrorist and no countries want to take them just like no countries want to help in Iraq and Afgann except with a few people. it kills me that dumbo said he would get more help by being nice and saying sorry to these countries, but he did not get it. People forget that England and other countrys really do not like us. They see what we have done and are mad because they have tried and can not get it right. But let something happen and we are the first ones they yell for help from.

I would beg to differ here. Any person that breaks US law, plans to do the same, to include US citizens abroad, would fall under US law. Once captured, they can be prosecuted. I agree with an earlier comment, that POW’s are kept till the end of the war. In this case, the Gitmo prisoners should be tried and if convicted, either be put to death, or locked up in a supermax for life, or set free if found innocent.

The War on terrorism will never end. It is not an officially declared war anyway, much like the war on drugs, when the bad guys are caught, they are tried under US law, as should be any terrorist, under the same pretense.

Interesting read NubiQ. Looks like yet another power grab. I wonder how he’ll use all this power once everything is in place. If you believe he is basically a Good Person who can be trusted to look after the well being of Americans, then this isn’t worrisome at all. If you’re like me and have your intuition alarm bells ringing off the wall, this is worrisome indeed. I’m not one to be paraniod in general, but this kind of thing is really beginning to scare me.

I believe that thetrial onlt applies if they are caught breaking US law inside the US or are subject to extradition in accordance with foreging agreements. Usually criminals violating the drug trafficking laws, when captured outside the US are subject to the laws of the nation where they are arrested. If we applied that concept to terrorists, they woul, for the most part, be turned over to the government of the country where they were captured. If that were the case, most would be executed by those governments for crimes against the state. There is no easy answer here. If terrorism is a crime, then the military should be withdrawn and international laws against terrorism established similar to those for drug trafficking. If it is not, then the prisoners should be treated in accordance with war time rules, not neccessarily the Geneva conventions which specifically apply to uniformed combatants. In WWII, partisan/freedom fighters were executed as spys after the divulged all the info they held.A little harsh for my tastes, but they are taking up weapons and killing innocent civilians in their efforts to get to us. I agree with incarceration until the conflict ends, which may be forever.

I am not sure I really understand all that had gone on in the “war against terror” but there have been over 775 people run through Gitmo, and there are are 245 left there. Some have been turned over to other governments. But how did we become gain possession of these combantants? SOme of these people were turned over to us by their own governments and some we captured. I am beinning to wonder of the US is a fall guy. Some parts of this stink to high heaven.

Some of the Gitmo people…my understanding….were given to us by their governments ( truth of that who knows)(but if nit how did we get them?) some of these people were innocent and given back to their countries. A country contacts us says hey we have someone who we believe committed or is going to committ a terrorist act. We go get them and low and behold 6 months down the line there is no evidence.
We didn’t send out hit squads to hunt these people down. How did we figure out who was doing what and how did we get in possession of that person.
It would easily make the US a fall guy for any country that had anyone they wanted to incarcerate or get rid of for awhile. Will we be told if that is the truth…..very very doubtful. I just know that one of the men or maybe two that were from Britain said they were told that British intelligent gave them to us, and supposedly they were innocent.Truth? Who knows.
My take is that the way the US was handling this terrorist thing (allowing other countries to give us suspects) was not a good way of handling things.

There are many and difficult issues here . . . issues that need to be addressed, need to be researched, need to be debated fairly, and need to be analyzed in the foundational laboratory of the U. S. Constitution.

But, as serious as the issue of Guantanamo is (and it IS a serious issue), the larger issue at hand for the U.S. and our future is the issue of political character (and that sounds like an oxymoron in many corners at the moment).

It is astounding to me how that political expediency (in particular if that expediency is for the benefit/cause of the left, and of Presidnet Obama and his cabinet and Congressional leaders) has totally and unabashedly trumped statesmanship, honesty, and moral value.

It is more epidemic that the current flu.

And it has infiltrated the fabric of our society and culture.

Self has superceded “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The bubble of “personal right” has eclipsed the horizons of moral truth.

And forced “equality” is seeking, currently, to strip us of the ambition to better ourselves by our ingenuity and giftedness . . . i.e., hard work.

I am neither an alarmist nor a doomsday prophet.

But I am concerned at the ease and swiftness of the reworking of the loom that weaves the fabric of our heritage and our future.

I have attempted to use thw word “statesmanship” several times on the blogs over at Fox . . . and nearly every time, it seems that that is the word that prevents my post from appearing. THere is a frutrated irony in that; even in a “fair and balnced” environment, statesmanship seems to carry an unfair negative stigma.

Of all of the creatures that are an endangered species, perhaps the statesman, one who cares more for the future of our country more than the future of his or her party or office or popularity, one who is a student of history so that he/she can properly discern the moment and the future, is the most dangerous extinction we face in the history of America.

I hope I live long enough to again see an America whose majority leaders are statesmen, whose press is not so ridiculously enamored with any one politician, and whose heritage continues to be one of integrity, honesty and truth.

Some would say that I am longing for a day in the 1950’s that will never return . . .

I do not wish to return to the stereotypes and the prejudices of the 1950’s.

But I do long for a return to a nation which once more has both Consitutional and moral character.

I hope I am not alone.

I pray that elections (and candidates) soon reflect that kind of return.

Cydi, in reply to the above, people are arrested everyday who are innocent. Terrorists and drug dealers should be dealt with the same, if it is violating our US laws, and they are in our custody. There are many deportation agreements with many countries to make this happen.

A friend turned me on to Stand up for America. And so much ive read makes me sick to my stomach what this goverment is doing to the American people We are in troubel and i hope a lot more people wake up and smell the flowers. I surved in the navy and i am a member of the United States Navy Memorial. I would have died for my Country then and ill Damn sure die for it again. In the service or not.
w’

So are there elements to this story that we simply know nothing about? I do not think that affording the same basic protections we proudly hinge our heritage and freedom and liberty to makes us weak in the knees in the long run. What is missing is ‘what is the other side of the story’ here – what fed/led into the position change if that is what it is? Are there things the administration knows now that it did not know back then? Are the National Security issues at stake here that tuck this into the ‘things the public should never know about’ file? While I find the frequent fatalism here disturbing, I would allow the possibility that there were nothing more than political motivations soup to nuts here – just not very likely.

Whatever it is, it doesn’t have anything to do with this site. I have no advertising at all here. If you get it again, let me know the website that it takes you to and I will research it. I get about 25 spam a day here that I eliminate so one may have gotten through and still be here. I will attempt to find this one if it happens again as well.

Even as a self-confessed liberal, I have issues with the amount of flip-flopping. I would love to see President Obama come forward and say, “Upon further review, liberal idealism has met with conservative realism and we’re going to be realistic here”. Not holding my breath though.

Additionally, I noticed you had mentioned you wanted more leftist opinion in the forums. If you’ll accept my criticism, I believe you need to make at least the opening paragraph of your posts more “liberal friendly” or at least politically neutral. Actually, this thread has great potential to generate more interest from a liberal standpoint. But the “in your face!” writing could be held off until later in the article. Of course this is a double-edged sword, and I would hate to see this resource go down the tubes like the Fox Forums.

Regarding the tangent subject of the post: What to do with terrorists? I believe the detainees would make a great reality show. Also, if we wanted to torture them, we can make them watch reality shows, although I’m sure they’d rather be waterboarded, or tasered, or beheaded, or …

More seriously, has the current administration flip-flopped because they are searching for a finite solution to the problem of holding enemy combatants, and the Bush administration was right? I think, yes. I remember reading that when faced with a trial, if you are innocent, you’re better off in a military trial, if you’re guilty, you’re better off in a state trial.

I do not know enough to make an informed decision, but my emotional feeling is that permanent detention without trial is a bad thing.

I hope I speak for others when I say it is not just more Liberals we need to here from but those who can articulate their views, engage in rational discussion and do so in a civil manner. Same for staunch convservatives by the way.

Given this criteria, please stick around. I think you are going to find that most of us here share some very key values with “traditional liberals”.

Beheading is their own game. As for tasering, its done to uncooperative skateboarders and I’m sure the outcry would be all over CNN and the rest of main stream American media outlets if there indeed was any.

I appreciate the feedback on the way that I open my articles. A bit of an explanation may help (although don’t take it to mean that I am not taking your feedback under consideration for future posts). One of the things that always drew me to whatever I have read was honest and blunt discussion or wording. As such, I do much of that. I don’t pull many punches when it comes to saying what I think. I tend to write from the perspective of attempting to capture the attention of whomever begins reading and hopefully being able to keep them interested through the end of the article.

I am obviously passionate about the political world. It is just who I am. I lean more conservative than liberal, as is obvious as well. But the one thing I do try, at all times, to be is fair and honest. For example this article pointed out flip flopping in the Dems, and the next day there was one about flopping by the Republicans. I take no prisoners when I address an issue. If you think that my saving the more blunt comments for later in the article would get more liberal folks discussing the issues, I would certainly take that under consideration. I want many differing views. We can’t fix what is wrong without discussing why it isn’t working.

Thank you for the response. Actually, I collected that same information from SFC Dick’s comment above. Although the packaging was somewhat different, I felt his reply could be sumarrized in these two ways:

“Bold statements provoke responses” and “This isn’t as easy as it looks”.

If I was feeling wordy [Ha!], I would have added, “correct me if I’m wrong” to the beginning of that. But I have a feeling I don’t need to make that statement here.

Obviously, SFC Dick is correct. I tend to keep my posts to a single “inflammatory” statement, and it is those that garner the most responses. For instance, his response to my post was the criticism that I had for your writing style.

Also, my few posts and the responses to them have made me invest hours of research. So let me declare that I don’t think what you do is easy. I have a hell of time keeping up with just the reading, add reading the responses and…I’m late for work at 9:30 on a Monday morning…